Dunn v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
376 F.2d 191 · 1967
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Patton v. State of North Carolina (1967), People v. Jones (1971)
60 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Relies on Stapf v. United States · Yates v. United States · Short v. United States · United States v. Luciano
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * The Attorney General shall give any such [convicted] person credit towards service of his sentence for any days spent in custody prior to the imposition of sentence by the sentencing court for want of bail set for the offense under which sentence was imposed where the statute requires the imposition of a minimum mandatory sentence. * * *””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Denial of credit in the context of a jurisprudence where others guilty of crimes of the same or greater magnitude automatically receive credit would entail an arbitrary discrimination within the power and hence the duty of the court to avoid. 367 F.2d 329 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘Witnesses before both the subcommittees’ 1964 and-1965 hearings were unanimous in finding no justification for (restricting § 3568 to minimum term offenses). * * * It was observed that the crimes for which Congress has set minimum mandatory sentences are those which are considered so serious that judicial discretion in sentencing should be limited. It is ironic that persons accused of such serious crimes should be assured of receiving credit for pretrial custody, while those convicted of less serious crimes for which no minimum mandatory sentence is required have the benefit of no such assurance. (S.Rep. No. 750, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 21 (1965).)’ The 1966 act terminates the discrimination now before us. It also assures credit for all presentence custody, and not merely custody for want of bail.” (Footnotes omitted.) (Emphasis added.) 8”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.